For a considerable length of time I have hoped that someone could help me model a universe based where this analogy or supposition is true G (or gravity or the Higgs boson or the graviton or any of the above comprehensions of the term of attraction of mass in 3 dimensional space) equals mass - energy.

To fully comprehend is gonna take some very open minded and fundamental changes in present theory and yes it does run into problems but so did string theory at first.

If you can allow this theory to apply most of the astronomical present questions I mean black holes etc. actual astronomical questions are quite quickly explained away as for as for the sub atomic it simply becomes the most resting mass.

For example
Throughout several forums I have visited especially astronomical forums comments like quantum singularity and point black hole have arisen to consider a single subatomic structure to be responsible for such a phenomenal observation is simply ludicrous a Giant Mass sits at the centre of a black hole as we all know although its composition is what we should be arguing about as it would appear impervious to the forces applied upon it.


I will go on further to state that within astronomical theory the Big bang yet another favourite subject of many forums, is only a theory I have my own that no longer needs some form of cataclysmic event to have ever happened, outside the bounds of existing observations within our universe. Although my theory gives me much greater concern for out universe.

I hope someone can take the time to consider assisting me make some computer generated models based on the theory especially when applied to an astronomical equation.

If taken into consideration it does not damage or in any way alter present string theory but offers greater scope and a much simpler approach to explaining far greater mass issues when asked to fit string theory into gravitational equations

To consider string theory and gravity within the same argument contradicts string theory as the greater the energy in the string, stating that the string energy has a mass the less like the Higgs boson it will appear.

Any other ridiculous ideas applying string theory to gravity can work on there own "g string" (lmao)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that after spending billions on trying to identify the mysterious force of gravity when observed on a astronomical theory it simply is almost unquantifiable on a singular atomic scale.

I dived into it a while ago and came upon a link that had the sobering message from dutch astronomers that paraphrased ;black matter is a figment of our imagination since positrons and electrons can simply acquire more mass by passing a storm from a nearby star.

higgs boso ns are supposedly tiny events that take place in vacuum...were only strings could acquire mass? Given enormous IV and absolute cold... Upon receiving this they self implode.
But there still has to be a heaviest particle higgs boson before selfdestruct and after...I suppose? So a higgs is heavy and loaded with electro-magnetic force enough to create (in) a vacuum? A mini dumbbel shape? Or a particle that pops up whereever it wants (like strings are supposed to do) as a double of itself?
Given that it takes an electron storm to give particles mass and to observe it later on. Even strings are theoretical.-It sounds just like two neutrons colliding.- And they are not stable enough.
Probably the only thing bent is space time...how this should be created on the spot or how this could accelerate everything around it later is beyond me.
And frankly strings are defined as the very thing i.e. space-time.
Strings colliding and making mass i.e. spacetime and accelleration. So a higgs would be a clump of string?
instead of a brane...a bit of spacetime turned in on itself, but popping up in a collision or maybe it's just strings twanging at a different wavelenght we perceive as mass after popping up through an electro-magnetic storm of a nearby star?

I'm still contemplating the idea that we had a big bang with a mass no greater then 0.8 (if I remember the theory and math correctly) earthmass...so what about these huge black holes everywhere that gattered mass later?
Are they even black holes as such...jets shoot out of them.

Before one has a bit of understanding of energy turning into mass one has to abandon the idea that mass is only created AND can only excist at event horizons of tiny vacu in spacetime...it just does not add up.

Don't think in particles but in waves for the calculations to work so why come up with strings( a wavelenght particle) and a higgs boson?

In another ten months the models will be made.
Some theoreticists think it more exciting if higgs was never found.

Strings i.e. space-time turned in on itself?

Dark matter does not exist latest finding. Just positrons and electrons making their way through an electro magnectic storm of A NEARBY STAR. STRNGS MIGHT AQUIRE HIGGS MASS IN THE SAME WAY?
ThE black hole from the big bang was o.8 earthmass...SO WHAT ABOUT THE REST?

in ten months the data will be produced even though the very huge collider crashed they still got some data to make models with...it's a race.

energy becoming mass...hmmm.

is it just an image taken to far...think in waves not in particles to do the maths...so why come up with dumbbell higgs or string wave-particles?

OK where to begin

space-time turned in on itself yet another analogy to keep the subject alive not an actual fact.

Quote The black hole from the big bang was o.8 earth mass...SO WHAT ABOUT THE REST?

A) prove it lol

B) subject to the laws I'm trying to open minds about Mass and size are two very different things the density of the resting particles(and of course if the big bang is correct which I'm not so sure about)it is stated would compact to the aforementioned size before it would catastrophically explode well that the theory, bull if ya ask me.

We should look at gravity as a property of mass rather than a separate particle.

Quote
In ten months the data will be produced even though the very huge collider crashed they still got some data to make models with...it's a race.

Nope sorry no link to gravity will be found bet ya a tenner. Or it will be so buried in mathematical nonsense that it simply wont exist hell I can prove 0 is 1 given enough bull maths to play with.

Quote
energy becoming mass...hmmm
Photon !(no rest mass so it is said)


Quote
I'm still contemplating the idea that we had a big bang with a mass no greater then 0.8 (if I remember the theory and math correctly) earth mass...so what about these huge black holes everywhere that gattered mass later?
Are they even black holes as such...jets shoot out of them.

Yet another complete misconception about black holes is that they create or destroy mass simply put nope they don't they simply spread it around,they are under my theory the name given when two masses the less dense orbits and gets very slowly destroyed around another more dense body the jets seen at the poles etc. are simply the only part of the central mass that can escape ( when i say seen its actually high energy radiation not visable in the narrow human ideas of light these particales due to there high energy state are not as affected by gravitational forces ) the massive gravitational forces applied around the equatorial interaction.
Stars solar systems plannets galexys are formed or destroyed by a black hole the hubble constant on a local scale if ya like. Once again all other theories about black holes are simply wrong !

Quote
Dark matter does not exist latest finding. Just positrons and electrons making their way through an electro magnectic storm of A NEARBY STAR. STRNGS MIGHT AQUIRE HIGGS MASS IN THE SAME WAY?

From all known observations within our universe energy is needed for any change without such mass forms big black bloody solid rock (emphasis on dark being black rock the moon and planets could be said to be dark matter as they don't emit light again so many different concepts about the nature of dark matter when the original concept was quite simple)! Which itself will if enough mass will continue to compact until it reaches a resting state if the rest state is achieved that mass will not emit any light and is therefore Dark Matter !

Originally the implementation of Dark matter was within the calculation of the big bang which some clever dude said there is not enough obseravable mass! After that Dark matter or unobservable matter was concluded to be the answer which if you agree with the big bang theory or any other theory it is.Only after that was it necessary to quantify and specify the nature of what Dark Matter is !

Quote
Don't think in particles but in waves for the calculations to work so why come up with strings( a wavelenght particle) and a higgs boson?

Simple waves do not and will not have mass at rest they form larger particles like protons etc which we can quantify.
The defination of a particle implies mass and well mass exists therefore !

Again the idea that all we understand about atomic mass is in a constant state of change is where string theory plays its part we on earth do not see a rest mass it simply doesent exist on earth due to gravitational forces heat light and a whole bunch of other forces in fact no where in the obserable universe can rest mass exist the nearest we observe is that at the center of a black hole.

Again to simplify
1) Treat gravity as a property of mass especially when applied to any gravitational calculations

2) Stop looking for the two ends of the scale the Sub atomic or astronomic "Big Bang theory" in the same mathematical statement the two simply cannot be measured by any means by the same unit of anything.

Lets say the super hadron collider splits the electron, an already barely quantifiable particle into hummm, 10, 100 1000 that's more ridiculous 10-e calculations to consider then lets take it to earth size that's our incredulous small particle multiplied by astronomical figure to give now 10+e silly amount that figure into a universal model well if you can pronounce the figure I will be impressed. Its all somewhat meaningless and valueless very expensive experimentation.

Im sorry but what do you expect the results to be !

If the higgs or graviton or as i lovingly call it the "g string"(rotfl) exist as a seperate quantifiable particle Im damn well sure there is nothing gained from identifieng it. We wong be able to manipulate gravity as Im damn well sure that atomic structures wont be happy without it and will simply adapt to a rest stable state again. What are we trying to do become modern day alchemists ! WHAT I ASK!

After reading your first and second post a few more times (the third one I'll read after posting this one)
so it's all about semantics...just some thoughts;

big bang and big crunch
how can anything truly come to rest...some students tried to make a map of the known universe (then and now as if it's the same!), it contains a chimney with emptiness... einstein looked at just the known universe i.e. our galaxy...maybe there isn't actually much more as in the rest/past being moments in our history.

It's no use asking where the big bang happened or when since there was no space time.
So how come they represent the background radiation as a globe with an equatorial band of slightly hotter 'material'.
With us in the center, since we made the measurements.
According to the map of the universe -a rounded cube- we are however somewhere in the right underquadrant close to the edge(we do not have..just to confuse the issue further)with the empty(dark matter as you defined presumably) chimney a bit more to the middle
Aren't strings=spacetime(accelerated therefore having mass) supposed to pop up everywhere and especially in places with absolute rest?

Are you an adherent of the finally ripped apart theory?

We are constantly moving (G as accelerated mass) and drawn to the center of our own galaxy.
just because we are looking in the past( or forever moving in a spiral) we perceive this as forever redshifting?
Big bang and big crunch inevitable.
Hmm on reflection it's as if i'm supposing an earthcentred universe.lol

Strings acting different given the environment. isn't the very experiment designed to exclude gravity (as we would also do creating plasma)

strings are everywhere...the fabric of our universe...how is it that true G defined as energy-mass would leave stringtheory untouched? just because the scales are different?... and why be 'kinder to the universe'?

...as it stands now any string gathering mass would automatically self destruct...become a photon?, a hadron? and or twin image of itself create space time as in dissolving the vacuum? so i think a residual higgs is a figment of imagination. maybe if the machine (huge collider)switched of immediatemente it could be seen that something obtained gravity=energy-mass through acceleration. maybe the breakdown was the blessing in disguise or the very thing that happens if strings=six dimensions at least- try to dissolve vacuum/absolute rest.
The amount of accelaration(the value ) seems to be the crucial factor. just as E=mc2 has a given value for c.
Isn't it all about changing that value or rather finding out how matter reacts if we are not considering fusion of protons? smashing matter into antimatter and hoping to generate just energy -without destroying ourselves in the proces.
fusion; We know that two protons together have less mass then two single protons, the rest of the mass is released as energy. how much is calculted with the formula e=mc2

strings were a mathematical wave representation to think beyond 3 dimensions. no adherent of the early days ever had any unification in mind...wrong tool for the purpose.

isn't it the case that we can't do the mathematics or modeling unless we think in waves.
with particles we go nowhere.
so the mistake made would then be to confuse the dimensionally advanced mathematics with the real stuff?

Quote:From all known observations within our universe energy is needed for any change without such mass forms big black bloody solid rock (emphasis on dark being black rock the moon and planets could be said to be dark matter as they don't emit light again so many different concepts about the nature of dark matter when the original concept was quite simple)! Which itself will if enough mass will continue to compact until it reaches a resting state if the rest state is achieved that mass will not emit any light and is therefore Dark Matter !

So as not to confuse other readers the definition of black matter is matter unlike what we are used to. invisible hard to detect, goes right through us.

1) big bang
accelaration
also objects in a spiral galaxy spin too fast, one would expect those further from the center to be slower.
Dark Matter (not like normal matter particles) was suggested as a solution

2) CMB
Kashlinsky we live in a bubble, given the irregularities of fast moving 'galaxies' as seen in background matter/afterglow big bang, presumed Dark Flow to other universes

3) 7 billion y.a.
sudden expansion/inflation Alan Guth
suggestion vacuum= energy of nothing...stretched Dark Energy with same properties as a vacuum?

hundreds of other theories trying to give a description...
what is observed...try to explain
one of those is trying to suppose varying speedlimits.

I have a proposition, something I have been thinking about that may already have been discussed

First, I have never seen a picture of a black hole that is a picture of blackness surrounded by an accretion disk of light and gas and matter, such as described by the theory of black holes. The pictures I have seen, even the ones of the supposed black hold at the center of our galaxy, are pictures of luminosity.
I realize that such pictures are not actual pictures like the ones taken by a kodak, they are pictures of radiation which is what allows us to see through the veils of dust and gas that mask the center of our galaxy. Despite this, it seems to me that not having the picture of a hole at the center of the luminosity is telling.

we don't understand why this should be so.

the propostion I have is that, while singularities exist, we fail to take into account that, inside these things, the laws of physics break down. in the rest of the universe, matter (information) cannot be destroyed. the Hawking1 theory declared that when the singularity ceases to exist, so does the information eaten by it. Hawking2 while the info doesn't get destroyed, it is torn apart and rendered irretrievable.

both of these ideas do not take into account that physics break down inside the singularity.

my idea is that, a black hole does eat information but that what it does when it 'dies' is spew that information back into the universe if the form of new information.
it does this using gravity as a creation engine

I set as an example: our galaxy and the waves of cosmic radiation, dust and gas being spewed from the core almost constantly but specifically in bursts. These burst seem to coincide with great changes in the living structure of this planet; climate changes, extinctions,etc
the galactic core seems to be ensuring that life continues by sucking stuff in, crunching it up and spitting it back out to the edges of its accretion disk where it cycles back into the creation of new stars and solar systems and possibly life giving planets.

this is why the galaxy spirals

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

why do we have yellowy disk galaxies and bue spiral galaxies? what's the difference in proporties?

I never understood how hawking went from 1 to 2 and then still supposed a big bang/semi-wormhole.
What causes the non-existence of singularities...and only on a quantum scale that is.
"It's not destroyed but irretrievable because it is elsewhere.
Presumably gravity higgs boson needen to give it mass, where usually accelaration provides particles with mass."
A lightquantum presumably weighs nothing regardless of accelaration. No mass.
To reach lightspeed in the LHC we would need all the energy in the universe...so we can't. So why would the big rip ever happen?

just pondering along. good question about those spirals.
can't rightly recall which of the above three were contrary to hawking.

I am not a physicist OneWorld just a well read, intelligent, curious person.
I thought about the yellow disk, blue spiral question

my answer goes to the idea that the black hole is not an engine of destruction but of creation and that's why we can't account for so much about galactic behavior and fail in our attempts at a Unified Theory. They see gravity as a holding force when it is actually a creation by destruction force

current theory says that black holes eat. They do but this eating process doesn't describe the luminosity of their structures. They are also exuding something...radiation, light, dust, gas when it is said, nothing can escape. How and why?

My idea is that the centers of galaxies are giant information rewriting factories powered by gravity. The old, already written info goes in (stars, planets other structures etc,) the new, clean, unwritten stuff comes out (dust, gas, atomic particles etc.) Mostly it comes out in steady streams of galactic burps. This accounts for the waves of dust and gas we see as visual obstructions at the center of our galaxy. It also accounts for the periodic flaring and coronal mass ejection of our sun as these waves of dust and gas and particles reach it and interact with its mag field and physical surface. TTauri stars are currently under going this CME and solar flare cycle.

perhaps, if I am correct, blue spirals show rare massive core explosion events. the light coming from them is blue shifted because it is currently being ejected. There is evidence that such massive explosions have occurred in our system. This evidence is found in the climate records of ice cores, geological and sedimentary studies, global climate changes and mass extinction (think Permian).

the yellow disk galaxies may be ones that have just experienced the end of an explosion and are fuzzy and diffused because of the change in the radiant energy from hi UV to infrared and the presence of large quantities of unorganized dust clouds. Or perhaps they are new galaxies whose accretion disks and arms are not yet formed.

this theory that I have allows that information doesn't disappear into another galaxy, it allows that galactic structures and objects are part of a working, living system
I think the concept of multiple universes is wrong
if you apply occam's razor to this multiplicity theory, it looks ridiculously complicated.

perhaps the center of our universe is occluded by dust, as is the center of the galaxy and is actually a enormous version of this black hole, gravity driven information conversion machine. If the oldest red shifted galaxies are being drawn along a spiral type arm of a structure we are not able to comprehend because it is too large, and they are being drawn ever faster along this arm, it could explain red shift. It could explain why radio telescopes have a hard time filtering the noise from that direction. Imagine the emissions from such a universe size structure! Imagine the implications of gravity as engine and em as a result of engine.

G=m-e...c=e-m...e=m-c2???? but C would have to equal E so what does that mean.......I just don't know...

the gravity as engine theory works as a thought process. I lack the math necessary to prove it and thus cannot present it.



Dawn

that's why the red shift galaxies remain intact as they approach light speed...

it's spring and i've just come from an atheistic, 'free sex', supposedly humanist freethinkers forum that of all things diciplines freethinkers. Please be constructive and detailed and stick to what I intend which is bashing the jehova wittness, subliminal message: do not respond to the abject nonsense the moderator posts to rile the intelligent polite man. 6 post's and there's the warning.
Red flag; the rules say you should make it a personal message and you are not allowed to discuss your warning in public. I've been on the internet since it's invention...never i swear! Nothing to do with freethinking whatsoever. Utter trash.

So rereading your first post here Dawn, i came upon the idea that Hawking invented a garbagedisposal unit.
Only out nothing in. Why? We would be pretty shocked if another big bang materialised in our backyard...and maybe that's just what happened 7 billion years ago.

black holes are supposedly in all galaxies. interesting idea.

I have to look closer at the planck constant and it's implications.

Topic home has pretty good references...just keep learning and pondering...it can ony get better!

Quote dawn: Message:
what if the speed limit isn't light...but gravity which implies, there is none, if you use gravity as a power source that's why the red shift galaxies remain intact as they approach light speed... if singularities are gravity engines... physics breaks down inside a singularity meaning that...gravity travels faster than light which is why light is not affected by gravity... holy crap who do I tell about this? Dawn

Well...Since holy crap is so much better then utter trash!

sounds like the stetched vacuum, also a bit hard to fanthom.
But light is affected by gravity. Look behind=through a heavy star and 4 ghostimages appear around it.
But on a quantumscale?

I honestly do not know where to go with the original post:
G=E-m

GAK! mechanist universe alert!

it is NOT crap and it has NOTHING to do with a stretched vacuum, what the hell does that combination of words even mean? How can you say there is a vacuum at all when the temps in our own solar system are above absolute?

nature abhors a vacuum...they do not exist!

Look at the LIGHT coming out of black holes! There is no black in a black hole!

gravity doesn't TRAP LIGHT....it isn't HEAVY ENOUGH

what does this tell you about gravity?...it bends light but DOESN'T slow it down

the pictures that red shifted galaxies are moving at or near the speed of light yet remain structurally intact tells you what?

UHG!

Dawn

There is no such thing as gravity which is why String T. is not only correct and true but quantifiable in any forum or test you propose. Your gravity is Electromagnetic Consumption Factor which is why your Brass slowly blisters and decays with time, it is being (literally) Consumed.

Thought for consideration:

Starting from the standpoint of an adequate knowledge of Brownian motion as observed in gasses and a bare-bones conceptual knowledge of the theory of quantum foam as described by Andrew Zimmerman Jones -

It seems to me that quantum foam, the constant appearance and reaction of particles (also possibly explained in other ways, not particularly relevant at this point but still worthy of consideration at another time), would act very similar to Brownian motion, creating expansion in the absence of any limiting factors.

The "islands of matter," for an easy conceptual term, act as a group of mass due to higher-order interactions, or simply the current development of the sheer chaos of Brownian motion in quantum foam.

Or I could just be making a wild shot in the dark. I really have no clue, since I am, admittedly, not objective enough to know for sure. Or am I too objective to know for sure? I don't know!